Sandhu v Enterprise Rent-A-Car Ltd

An employment tribunal does not err in law merely because it does not repeat every issue in a list of issues, provided its findings and reasons adequately explain the decision actually reached. In a harassment claim, the tribunal must assess the statutory elements in context. Although separate trivial incidents may in principle be considered cumulatively, aggregation is not required where the incidents were objectively trivial and were committed by different people who did not know of the relevant third-party disability. Whether conduct has the prohibited effect is an evaluative judgment for the tribunal. In an unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal must identify the actual reason for dismissal and assess fairness under Employment Rights Act 1996, section 98(4), by reference to that reason and all the circumstances.

Ms Sandhu brought claims for discrimination, harassment and unfair dismissal arising from her employment by Enterprise Rent-A-Car Ltd. The Employment Tribunal dismissed all the claims after a four-day hearing and detailed factual findings. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed her appeal.

On appeal to the Court of Appeal, she argued that the tribunal had failed to consider whether two alleged incidents, viewed together, amounted to harassment, and had failed to explain its conclusion that her dismissal was fair, particularly concerning lesser sanctions, warnings and incremental disciplinary steps. The central questions were whether the tribunal had misapplied the statutory harassment test and whether its reasons adequately addressed the fairness of dismissal for the reason actually found.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Tribunal's conclusions on harassment and unfair dismissal disclosed no error of law, and the EAT was right to dismiss the appeal.
2. In relation to harassment under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010, the tribunal correctly directed itself to consider the entirety of conduct found proved, while also analysing individual allegations. The phrase used by the tribunal, that there were no facts from which it could conclude that conduct was related to the protected characteristic, reflected the burden-of-proof approach in section 136(2).
3. The tribunal was entitled to find that the two material incidents were not harassment. They were objectively trivial, involved different actors, and neither actor knew of Ms Sandhu's father's disability. The tribunal's reference to but-for causation indicated only a tenuous and abstract connection, not a sufficient relationship to disability. Whether the statutory threshold was met was an evaluative assessment for the tribunal. On different facts, apparently trivial incidents could be considered cumulatively.
4. The court declined to decide whether an actor must know of a third person's disability before conduct can be related to that disability, because the issue was unnecessary to the appeal. Lady Justice Laing nevertheless regarded the point as difficult where the alleged harasser did not know of the third-party disability.
5. On unfair dismissal, the tribunal identified the actual reason as principally some other substantial reason: Ms Sandhu's unwillingness to accept the established reporting structure and adapt to new processes, closely connected with the performance process. It then applied section 98(4) to the reason actually found, considering the fairness of the procedure, the appeal, and whether dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses.
6. The tribunal was not required mechanically to address every issue in the original list once the case had developed and the actual reason for dismissal had been identified. Its findings and six broad themes sufficiently dealt with warnings, lesser sanctions, incremental discipline and the range of reasonable responses. Objectively, Ms Sandhu knew why her claim failed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): appeal from the Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed on 3 March 2025.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: appeal from the Employment Tribunal dismissed; judgment of His Honour Judge James Tayler, EA-2022-001179-OO.
• Employment Tribunal: claims for discrimination, harassment and unfair dismissal dismissed following a four-day hearing; judgment sent to the parties on 4 October 2022.